Sunday, September 16, 2012

Grisly Drug War Fact of the Day

"The American news media continues to report the body count in Mexico’s “War on Drugs” at more than 50,000 dead. But Molly Molloy,
a researcher at New Mexico State University, tallies more than 100,000
Mexicans killedto wage a war financed and mandated by American
authorities and led by Mexican president Felipe Calderón."

From the article "Mexicans Pay in Blood for America's War on Drugs." Note: That would be a casualty count that approaches the U.S. body count during WWI (116,500 deaths) and more than the combined American casualties during the Korean War (36,500 deaths) and the Vietnam War (58,000 deaths).

68 Comments:

She does. From the Editor's Note of the article: "Using official government reports as well as press accounts, Molloy created a detailed record of the violence in Ciudad Juárez since 2008 and makes her data available to reporters and other researchers; she also distributes daily "news and analysis" through the Frontera-List that is read by subscribers ranging from international human-rights groups to U.S. congressional staffers."

Today, I don't agree that we should legalize drugs but will I keep an open mind to facts.

If we did legalize pot and possibly other drugs would it be highly regulated and taxed? If so, would we continue to see cheaper drug sources south of the border thus creating another illegal black market? Would we be trading one set of problems for an equally destructive set of problems?

Doesn't that depend on what "regulating" means? I mean, alcohol is legal and regulated and we don't have a huge black market in that drug. Nobody is killing each other over alcohol. Why would other drugs be different?

Wouldn't it be more efficient for Police to look for people driving under the influence rather than finding ways to seize property and hounding people who are using responsibly?

Didn't you say you have advanced degrees in economics? Do you know nothing about elasticity? Demand for drug is pretty inelastic. Have you never heard of externalities? The price of the drug war is by FAR not exclusively paid by the people engaged in the sale and consumption of drugs.

Can the U.S. afford another dimension of mass devastation?

This devastation that you and your busybody, holier than thou ilk have wrought we definitely cannot afford.

I guess those 100,000 slaughtered Mexicans don't count as people to the Peak Traders of the world. There's just no price to high for others to pay so that you can continue to nurse your self-righteous delusions of piety.

Sociopathic men account for less than 1% of the male population and sociopathic women account for around 0.8% of the female population. This statistic is pretty standard in all countries. Moreover, sociopaths are rarely killers. They're much more likely to be Madoffs.

And why should we believe that murderous psychopaths are more prevalent in Mexico? Were Mexicans slaughtering each other in great number before the U.S. kicked off its drug war?

Methinks, the U.S. has little or no control over policies of foreign countries.

Oh, I see. So, the U.S. running around waving guns, invading and bullying other countries (including Switzerland) do do its bidding is an example of the U.S. not controlling policies in other countries. Sometimes I can't tell if you're joking or just completely mad.

However, illegal drug users in the U.S. control the number of murders in Mexico.

Oh, I see. So, it's peaceful Americans who simply wish to ingest a substance you don't approve of that are killing all of those Mexicans. It's not your aggressive tactics to prevent them. Uh-huh.

before we get too stupid about this, let's go back to Hancke's question (regulation/tax).

Personally, I am in favor of this method as an initial step. I d o not think the black market problem would be nearly as big as it is now. If a good is legal, people will rather pursue the legal option. The costs are lower (risk of incarceration, can go right to the store and back, etc).

Now, when alcohol was banned, the mob was able to really gain power. They had a monopoly on the trade and, since it was already illegal, they had no issue resorting to less than legal means to keep their monopoly.

I feel, with the legalization and regulation initial step, we can go a long way to making America a better place. Just like there hasn't been an explosion of alcoholism since prohibition ended, I do not expect a similar trend in drugs. If you disagree with me, I'd be interested in knowing why drugs differ from alcohol.

Finally, let's just say we were to keep drugs completely illegal. Why does the punishment have to be jail time? Wouldn't the time and money be better spent on rehab?

And I'd rather get a contact high from a guy smoking weed than be assaulted in my own home because the SWAT team got the wrong house again. I'd rather 100,000 people in one country alone weren't slaughtered so you can feel better about yourself. I'd rather drugs were sold at the corner store and people smoked pot on the street corners than live with the increasingly aggressive police state in this country.

Bring it. I don't have delusions of superiority I need to feed at the expense of others' lives.

Jon, if marijuana was legal and there are more renters, you may get a nice high, or many highs, before leaving your apartment.

No. It doesn't work that way. To get a contact high, I'd have to live in an apartment with them and have no ventilation. Neither of that is true.

Anyway, seeing as we getting off track, let me re-ask my question: There has not been an explosion of alcohol abuse since prohibition ended. Why would pot be different? What makes it different from alcohol?

Let's try to get the facts straight. The "war", at least the most violent part of it, is being financed by drug users ! And it is being waged, primarily, between rival cartels. The Mexican authorities are, of course, trying to eliminate all drug trafficking but must overcome the sophisticated weaponry and corruption that the cartels drug wealth buys. Oddly enough, these drug users are often the same people who have no problem making the connection between the purchase of a conflict or "blood" diamond and human suffering it finances, yet insist that their drug buying has nothing to do with the suffering and death in Mexico.

All of this would not be a problem if instead of using illegal drugs individuals, in this country, simply poured themselves a drink. Have a drink, spare a child.

Methinks - Doesn't that depend on what "regulating" means? I mean, alcohol is legal and regulated and we don't have a huge black market in that drug. Nobody is killing each other over alcohol. Why would other drugs be different?

Good point on a comparison to alcohol. I guess that largely depends on what legalized pot would sell for per ounce. The current US avg price of an ounce of pot is around $341. The legalized price per ounce in Portugal is $272 according to priceofweed.com. Will a similar price gap give incentive to Mexican cartels to undercut domestic prices? We know the states and fed will get their cut or the hunt will be on.

Will a similar price gap give incentive to Mexican cartels to undercut domestic prices?

Like anyone who wishes to stay in business, yes. Either that, or go legit. Either way, the incentive for violence drops significantly. Violence is expensive. If your profits are getting squeezed, you're less likely to resort to that method.

If you want to stop a drug gang, than legalize the product. Prohibition only strengthens the outlaws.

JM are these the questions in question? "Finally, let's just say we were to keep drugs completely illegal. Why does the punishment have to be jail time? Wouldn't the time and money be better spent on rehab?"...

"Good point on a comparison to alcohol. I guess that largely depends on what legalized pot would sell for per ounce. The current US avg price of an ounce of pot is around $341. The legalized price per ounce in Portugal is $272 according to priceofweed.com. Will a similar price gap give incentive to Mexican cartels to undercut domestic prices? We know the states and fed will get their cut or the hunt will be on."

A great deal would depend on what types of restrictions remained on sources. In most parts of the US weed can be grown in your backyard, as it grows like a...weed.

Will homegrown be legal like homegrown tomatoes are today? That would just about eliminate most of the commercial market.

If the commercial price and taxes are high enough, you can count on a black market and smuggling to exist just as one exists in cigarettes today where there is a major difference in price across state borders.

If the commercial price and taxes are high enough, you can count on a black market and smuggling to exist just as one exists in cigarettes today where there is a major difference in price across state borders.

I didn't know that. However, I probably don't know that because I don't smoke and cigarette smugglers don't kill each other because people aren't generally willing to die to save a couple of bucks.

There's also smuggling of raw milk and those underage drinkers get their booze on a black market of sorts. But, nobody is killing each other over that either. Although....the raw milk ban is another source of irritation for me, but I digress.

"According to John D'Angelo of the U.S. government's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), there is a "direct relationship between the increase in a state's tax and an increase in illegal trafficking."

The Treasury Dept. is key in the current war on drugs with many agents deployed. I was surprised to learn there is currently a tax on "imported" drugs. All one needs to do to stay legal is to buy the tax stamp. To date the Treasury has not anyone come forward to buy a single stamp.

What is the price elasticity of demand for illegal drugs? It has to be inelastic, doesn't it? And a tax would be largely passed on completely to the user. Elasticities differ for addictive drugs than for relatively non-addictive drugs. Does the falling price of illegal drugs reflect something about price elasticities of demand for those drugs?

Tobacco use has declined with better information. Information on drugs if made legal would likely have a similar effect.

Illegal drugs are of unknown quality to the end user and the user suffers from information asymmetry. Legalization would remove these information asymmetries. All other social norms would apply to drug use as now applies to tobacco use and alcohol use.

The increasing violence in Mexico could be due to the relatively stable addict population in America (cocaine and heroin) and the increasing production of domestic marijuana.

They attempt to diversify by offering new products like meth for the white poor rural population but domestic production undercuts their price. And more attempts at violent consolidation or forced mergers escalate.

You could view the cartels as rival firms constantly lowering price and fighting over distrubition routes. Using violence to gain a competitive advantage in the face of falling profits.

Jut look at Peak's comments. He trots out stuff like the reduction in productivity (assuming that's true, we must believe drugs are unique in lowering productivity and the fact that this is already happening while drugs are illegal sails right over Peak's head). This is followed by a wild assertion that costs of leap if drugs are legalized - although they have not leaped in any country that has legalized drugs. And in calculating costs, he doesn't include the lives that will be saved, the reduction in the police state. Apparently lives lost in the drug war are worthless.

Peak has also produced self-reported pot use stats. Very reliable. And then there's the crime rates associated with drugs - in an environment where drugs are illegal.

Well jm from your comment I can only assume you've never seen anyone having a bad day on dust or meth...

I'm also guessing if you had the very last job you'd want to be one of those employees in the rehab center they would bring these clowns to...

Both of those statements are correct. To be honest, the only contact I have had with hard drugs is via movies/TV shows. I've never done pot, but I know many of those who have (about 95% of them are incredible douchebags now).

"Both of those statements are correct. To be honest, the only contact I have had with hard drugs is via movies/TV shows. I've never done pot, but I know many of those who have (about 95% of them are incredible douchebags now). "

That's an interesting observation.

It's my opinion - based on nothing but anecdotal evidence and personal observation - that there are two things at work here.

One is that those who are now incredible douchebags were on their way to becoming douchebags in any case, and the use of pot, or any other psychoactive substance including alcohol, was and is a way of coping with problems in their lives. In other words, self medicating to feel better.

The use of pot may have been a symptom not a cause of douchebaggery.

The second thing is my belief, again not based on anything in particular, that long term use of drugs of any kind, changes wiring in a person's brain in ways that are irreversible, and almost always negative in effect, leaving them unable to maintain stable personal relationships or jobs even long after they stop using.

On the other hand, many people appear able to use drugs and alcohol in a manner that they control, and appear to suffer no ill effects from that use even over a long period of time.

"Maybe something like this WebMD posting: Pot Use in Teen Years May Lower IQ, Study ShowsEarly, Long-Term Marijuana Use Linked to Drop in IQ...:-)"

Yes, that would have been a good reference to cite in support of a claim that pot use by teens is dangerous, but it doesn't compare the effects of pot use to alcohol use, so isn't very helpful in supporting a claim that: "Study after study shows that the short-term and long-term effects of alcohol use greatly exceed those of marijuana."